Re: [Boost-users] ADL comment in noncopyable

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-15 18:01:20

"Steven E. Harris" <seh_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> My proposal, which was first submitted in 2002, has never been given
>> any serious consideration.
>
> Well, at least N1912 throws you a bone:
>
> ,----
> | N1691 may remain a preferable solution to N1893 because it does not
> | break existing code.
> `----
>
> If there are fewer costs with your proposal, it's hard to see why the
> author used "may" here. Picture the MadLibs version of this sentence:
>
>   __[noun]__ /may/ remain a preferable solution to __[noun]__ because
>   it does not __[egregious action clause]__.

My proposal represents a much bigger change to the language, so I'm
not sure "fewer costs" would be a reasonable way to characterize it.
It's a fairly big hammer to hit the problem with: inside of the new
"explicit" namespace you could sneak in any number of brand new and
otherwise-incompatible language rules, e.g. allow perl code inside an
explicit namespace ;-)

OTOH, it's a big problem, and IMO warrants a big hammer.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com